Several (more like 20) years ago, I rode a 55 or 56 cm (can't remember exactly) Bridgestone X0-3, which I loved, although it was a bit small for me (I'm almost 6 feet tall). It had 26" wheels, mustache bars, slicks (26x1.75) and knobbier (up to 1.95s). What a fun bike! I toured with it and it handled weight very nicely. I rode off road a lot, on road, commuted....I didn't know any better and just rode it for all my purposes - unlike today where I "know more" and have to have a specific tool for each task - and don't have as much fun.
A little later on, I rode a Surly Big Dummy as my primary commuter. It also had 26" wheels, and was the large sized frame (the largest they made). it rode great, too. Of course it carried loads really well. It was never gonna be fast - especially since I was pedaling! But I liked the bike - road well for its intended purpose. And it was not a small frame. Now I ride a 60cm 2009 Cantilevered Sam Hillborne with 700c wheels (of course), and it also rides really nicely. I just mention this because the reason I brought up the discussion is that I'm just genuinely curious. I know some other companies out there make 26" wheeled touring bikes in large frames, and wondered what the general feeling among the Rivendell group was concerning the "ideal" wheel size for a given purpose (in this case, loaded touring). On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:20:52 PM UTC-8, Michael Hechmer wrote: > > We run 26" wheels on our touring tandem. We are a tall ( 6'1" & 5'9") and > heavy (360 lbs) team. Add in a heavy steel frame at 40+ lbs, front and > real panniers, water, etc and our touring weight runs around 430lbs, and > day rides a bit over 400 lbs. Yet we have been riding the same 26", 36 > spoke wheels ( instead of the traditional 48 spoke 700C) for 5 years > without any problems. I believe / suspect that the shorter spoke lengths > make for a stronger wheel. We use a V shaped (DaVinci) rim and 38mm > (Marathon Racer) tires, which do a good job of protecting the wheels. So > yes, I would say, from my experience, 26" is an excellent choice for a > fully loaded touring bike. Ours is a travel tandem, and as has been noted, > the 26" wheels pack more conveniently. The only downside I have found is > the length of the head tube, which puts even a large front bag out of reach > of a decaleur. We use a small Acorn bag. Not as convenient, but no > decaleur required. > > All that said, if I were starting from scratch, I would choose 650B wheels > & canti brakes for a touring bike. I have that combination on both a > Saluki and a Trek 620 conversion. The wheel size, frame geometry, and tire > selection hit a real sweet spot. > > What I find more puzzling in recent RBW designs is the preference for > double TTs in designs of 64cm & below. It definitely looks like a solution > in search of a problem. I wouldn't hesitate to head out for self supported > touring on a single tube, 64cm Atlantis. > > Michael > in Westford Vt, where three days of constant sub zero temperatures ended > in freezing rain. UGH. > > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:46:53 PM UTC-5, john wrote: >> >> I'm wondering about the difference in tire sizes for loaded touring. >> >> Wouldn't a 26" wheel work better for loaded touring, regardless of the >> frame size? >> >> Why therefore doesn't Rivendell offer 26" wheels in their larger >> touring-capable frames, like the Atlantis and Hunq? >> >> What am I missing here? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
